Did State Recapture rule hit your pocketbook?

[wrobert]

I saw an interesting article from Don Gaetz today. He is proposing the State do away with the recapture rule that, for the first time, is going to result in tax increases of around 3-4% for homesteaded property owners even with values falling.

In Florida, homesteaded values are limited to a 3% annual growth. So with property values jumping in the double and triple digits in the past, homesteaded owners were protected from those huge tax increases. Now values are falling drastically, but not yet back to pre-boom levels. Since property is assessed in arrears in Florida, they look at last years values and even if the value has not dropped significantly, the owner can still see their taxable value go up 3% resulting in a tax increase if millage rates are held.

Now Senator Gaetz is saying that is is unfair for taxes to go up at the same time that property values are falling. This argument seems to ignore quite a few things starting with the fact that homesteaders were shielded from the value run-up. Now instead of addressing spending issues, Gaetz appears to be wanting to address the one thing that is trying, albeit slowly, a rule that is trying to bring a shade of fairness back to the system.

Keeping in mind that homesteaded property owners are overwhelmingly registered voters. And as long as they do not feel any pain, the pressure for government to get out of control spending under control is going to be removed. The problem, as I see it, is this is going to further shift the tax burden to the out of state owners, which at some point in time may just revolt and go find someplace else to vacation.

 

[ShallowsNole]

Affirmative. According to my trim notice, we are going to be paying more this year than we did last year, even though market value on the same trim notice decreased. It's not a huge increase, but still...

At the risk of offending my friends that live out-of-state, I personally see absolutely nothing unfair about Save Our Homes. It is the only thing that allows me to live on my family's homestead. If I had vacation property in another state, I would expect volatile property taxes.

But you really didn't want my terribly biased point of view here, did you?

 

[wrobert]

Affirmative. According to my trim notice, we are going to be paying more this year than we did last year, even though market value on the same trim notice decreased. It's not a huge increase, but still...

At the risk of offending my friends that live out-of-state, I personally see absolutely nothing unfair about Save Our Homes. It is the only thing that allows me to live on my family's homestead. If I had vacation property in another state, I would expect volatile property taxes.

But you really didn't want my terribly biased point of view here, did you?

The problem is just basic fairness. Taxes are too high for most, but for 2nd home owners they are ridiculous. And doing away with recapture is a silly suggestion, imho. 2nd homeowners should have seen some significant drops in non-homesteaded property as values adjusted downward. Homestead owners, because of the lack of volatility, see a steady creep up.

 

[TooFarTampa]

"Fell victim" to the recapture and it amounts to a couple of hundred bucks extra on our primary home. I am thrilled to pay it though because we switched from private to public school this year. It is nice to know that we are putting those taxes to good use.

I see nothing unfair about the recapture ... it can't go up more than 3 percent anyway (unless millage rates go up).

Our taxes in SoWal went down significantly, which seems very reasonable to me.

What's the millage going to be in SoWal this year?

 

[wrobert]

I see nothing unfair about the recapture ... it can't go up more than 3 percent anyway (unless millage rates go up).


What's the millage going to be in SoWal this year?

The unfairness is in the SOH protection.


Not sure, too many taxing authorities down there for me to keep up with. Probably no more than 10-13 total for everything though.

 

[TooFarTampa]

The unfairness is in the SOH protection.

No kidding. For every ShallowsNole (and I do appreciate your position SN) there are folks like my neighbors. He's a prominent area doctor who pays a pittance in property taxes -- they are sensible folks, they've stayed in the same house for almost 20 years and done nothing to it, until now. They are completing a huge $$$$$$ yearlong gut job and renovation and any increases in their taxes is going to be minimal. We pay three times what they do in taxes, and our market values are the same.

I think SOH should be limited to those 65 and above. Maybe 60. Everyone else should have a fair playing field.

 

[wrobert]

No kidding. For every ShallowsNole (and I do appreciate your position SN) there are folks like my neighbors. He's a prominent area doctor who pays a pittance in property taxes -- they are sensible folks, they've stayed in the same house for almost 20 years and done nothing to it, until now. They are completing a huge $$$$$$ yearlong gut job and renovation and any increases in their taxes is going to be minimal. We pay three times what they do in taxes, and our market values are the same.

I think SOH should be limited to those 65 and above. Maybe 60. Everyone else should have a fair playing field.

Why should those age 60 and above get such a break? Overall I would imagine that they use as much if not more local services, with the exception of education.

 

[TooFarTampa]

Why should those age 60 and above get such a break? Overall I would imagine that they use as much if not more local services, with the exception of education.

Saving the homes of those on fixed incomes. I lived in a town outside Boston for a year, and read stories about the retired people who had lived in this town for decades and were struggling to keep up with their property taxes during the market runup.

 

[wrobert]

Saving the homes of those on fixed incomes. I lived in a town outside Boston for a year, and read stories about the retired people who had lived in this town for decades and were struggling to keep up with their property taxes during the market runup.

But if the government would have held spending levels down and not used the run-up as some sort of tax lottery, and if everyone was assessed the same and fairly, taxes should have held or not changed very much at all. Shifting the burden from one group to another is not fair taxation. Especially when it is just to satisfy a voracious appetite for dollars.

 

[Bob Wells]

Its amazing that SOH and insurance was such a big issue for Crist and Rubio and neither panned out the way they wanted them to. Then this tax swap proposal gets booted from the ballot. As much as I have issues with the Florida Supreme Court they did good on that one because the schools were going to get screwed, much like the taxpayer did when the lottery passed. Less money from the state for schools more money from the local taxpayer is the cost of the lottery.